Stumbled upon gem, Properites of Gold and Alloys.

[GeoJack]

Enjoy,

https://www.911metallurgist.com/blog/gold-alloys-properties

[Mike C...]

PIC ?

[chrisski]

The link is to an article. I did not see a date, but was written as if it was 100 years old.

 

Also talked of purple gold.  Never heard of that.

[Morlock]

8 hours ago, chrisski said:

The link is to an article. I did not see a date, but was written as if it was 100 years old.

 

 

January 11th 2017

[chrisski]

20 hours ago, Morlock said:

January 11th 2017

Seems to me that was the date posted.  Feel the author either copied an old article or cited old texts.  Seems written like a USGS pub from over 100 years ago.  Written like this:

”The boiling point of pure gold has not been determined; calculated according to Wiebe’s formula it would be about 2,240°, or nearly 500° above the melting point of platinum. However, contrary to the belief of the older experimenters (Gasto Claveus, and others), it is sensibly volatile in air at far lower temperatures.”

Seems to me by now we’d know the boiling point of gold.

 

[Au Seeker]

4 hours ago, chrisski said:

boiling point of gold.

2970 *C which is 5378 *F

https://www.periodic-table.org/Gold-boiling-point/

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=CBHS&ptag=N3132D041519A9DFA1A1FF2&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127&q=2970+°C

That being posted some other sources have a different temperature.

Here's the search link if some want to see the results themselves.

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=CBHS&ptag=N3132D041519A9DFA1A1FF2&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127&q=boiling+point+of+gold.

[chrisski]

On 12/30/2022 at 4:30 PM, Au Seeker said:

2970 *C which is 5378 *F

https://www.periodic-table.org/Gold-boiling-point/

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=CBHS&ptag=N3132D041519A9DFA1A1FF2&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127&q=2970+°C

That being posted some other sources have a different temperature.

Here's the search link if some want to see the results themselves.

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=CBHS&ptag=N3132D041519A9DFA1A1FF2&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127&q=boiling+point+of+gold.

There's other things in this article besides just the "Unkown Boiling Point of Gold" that makes me think the article was written decades ago or cited off decades old sources.  The article in post #1 is an interesting read and worth a look.

[clay]

I liked the article. I found it to be up to date and informative. I didn't read anything in the article that would lead me to believe it didn't do a pretty good basic job of describing our current knowledge of our favorite element.

Even the boiling point of pure water at sea level is variable. I know this sounds like scientific heresy but just try it yourself! Seriously, even with the best equipment in the most controlled conditions your results will vary. It is unusual to see this admitted in popular media but it's common knowledge among real world hands on scientists of all fields.

All elements and most compounds have a theoretical vapor point (boiling). The theory and the actual rarely meet because testing is interactive and theory is just numbers. Something as simple as determining a boiling point involves, temperature measurement, calorie measurement and localized pressure measurements in real time all at once. Anybody who does real world analysis knows this about boiling points, specific gravity and a whole bunch of other basic science tests. Stuff in real life varies, elements and compounds are never pure, the more complex an instrument is that's used to measure the more variation in results, instruments need instruments to check their accuracy which introduces other potential errors. Simply repeating a test several times and getting the same result does not prove a fact, it does however show good technique and allows some confidence to creep in as the test repetitions continue with the same results. Unfortunately exact repeatable results are rarer than conditions that simulate repeatable results.

A good scientist will acknowledge these variables and avoid bold statements like "The boiling point of gold is X" when the discussion is about the basic qualities of the element. This is how real science works. It's unfamiliar to readers of popular science articles but when you look deeper into the foundation of that popular science you will (hopefully) find real scientists that live and work in a world of wonder and doubt and are not ashamed to admit how little they know - yet.

There is such a thing as natural purple gold, I've seen it and I even have a small sample here somewhere. When gold (like many elements) is finely divided it handles light striking it's surface differently than a solid piece of gold does. Finely divided gold can look purple or red with no gold tint if it's powdered finely enough. I think the article made that point.

Decades old science is still science. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't matter if the gold is finely divided (powdered) in 1910 or 2020 it will still appear purple. A single molecule deep gold vapor deposition on optical clear glass will show just about every color in the rainbow. Even with the most modern instruments and techniques the boiling point of gold is always going to be dependent on the actual physical conditions at the time of testing - no matter what popular science says the boiling point is.

 

[GeoJack]

I found the article very interesting in the material lost during the melting process. I had been asked about this once and didn't have an answer.